Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Scientists okay Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" for accuracy, Reverend Lovejoy voiceover   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 276
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

10251 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Jun 2006 at 4:43 PM (8 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



276 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2006-06-27 04:58:40 PM  
The cure for global warming is nuclear winter.

/eyes Iran
 
2006-06-27 04:59:11 PM  
jarrett: I'd like to see a cite supporting this claim.


Yeah .. as would I.

Problem with OLD data is the fact that the farther back you go.. the more "general" the data becomes. It is also pocket data, as you cant generally find "worldwide" data for a large area the farther back you go.

/This both supports and hurts both sides of the argument, but it throws "old 'precise' data reports into serious doubt.
 
2006-06-27 04:59:16 PM  
Now find some scientists who do not depend on scare grants for their opulant life styles.
That Futurama cut reminds me that brains in the Gore family run on the woman's side. Tipper's daughter is a producer or something on Futurama.
 
2006-06-27 05:00:30 PM  
Enough talk. It's obvious this is a really bad problem, I demand that solar panels be put on the roofs of our federal, state, and county government buildings NOW. And that all persons and businesses located within, let's say, 250 vertical feet of the oceans be moved inland, starting with Wall Street.

If Al Gore is serious, I'm sure he's several steps ahead of me on that. He is, right?
 
2006-06-27 05:00:44 PM  
The best quote of the article... As far as the movie's entertainment value, Scripps Institution geosciences professor Jeff Severinghaus summed it up: "My wife fell asleep."

Priceless!
 
2006-06-27 05:02:53 PM  
CreepyPete

From 1970 to 1996, China's fossil-fuel CO2 emissions grew at an annual rate of 5.3%. From 1990-96 alone, emissions from fossil-fuel consumption and cement production rose 39%. Growth has occurred largely in the use of coal, not suprising given China is the world's largest coal producer, which accounted for 98.7% of the total in 1950 and 71.2% in 2003. Liquid fuels now contribute 16.5% of emissions and have grown appreciably over the past decade. The anomalous peak for 1958-61 is common in Chinese data. These years are part of the period "The Great Leap Forward," and whether the anomaly represents a real event in CO2 emissions or a data residual is not clear. China is the world's largest hydraulic cement producer. In 2003 China produced an estimated 862 million metric tons of hydraulic cement, or roughly 43% of the world's supply. Emissions from cement production account for 10.4% of China's 2003 total industrial CO2 emissions.

Source: Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, US DoE.

Gore said China was utilizing cutting-edge technology in the documentary to reduce CO2 emissions. I wonder what other China he was referring to.

If this documentary had been directed at the world as a whole, and not primarily towards the US, he'd be a whole lot more credible in his accusations.
 
Dad
2006-06-27 05:02:57 PM  
crypticsatellite

but that's the thing...there are different cycles...if you go back far enough, you can find these massive changes in extremely short periods of time and the current changes fit in with those.

The movie did go back far enough. Like Epyn said, they were able to go back hundreds of thousands of years. I'm not saying there haven't been abrupt changes in the climate. Abrupt is different from extreme. The CO2/temperature spikes of today, compared to hundreds of thousands of years worth of scientific research are extremely high. There's never been a spike like this before. That's the whole point. Up until recently it's been, as you said, a normal cycle of up, down..up, down...up, down. But now it's up, down...up, down...HOLY FARK, how can it be so high!!

You should go see the movie just to get an idea of what I'm talking about.

 
2006-06-27 05:03:16 PM  
I think my bullshiat detector just overheated, blew a fuse, and exploded
 
2006-06-27 05:03:52 PM  
Goody goody maybe if we screw the planet up enough, Jebus will come early.
 
2006-06-27 05:05:04 PM  
crypticsatellite:

The mesozoic and carboniferous climate changes you mention were also each accompanied by the extinction of more than half of all life on earth.

Further, those climate changes were more gradual than the one we're seeing today -- in terms of number of degrees per year of change, we're unprecidented. Meaning that life will have less time to evolve to the climate changes and, if climate change was the driving force of the other extinctions, we'd expect even worse extinctions.

Of course, climate change and extinctions can form a downward cycle, and the root cause may be difficult to discern. Extinctions, especially of life that has a substantial impact on the CO2 cycle, can cause climate change, and climate change can cause extinctions.
 
2006-06-27 05:05:52 PM  
Vice President Gore, you think you're Roger Revelle, well let me tell you something: I knew Roger Revelle, I studied with Roger Revelle; he was a friend of mine.

And Vice-President Gore: You are no Roger Revelle!

(above statements only slightly exaggerated; I met Roger Revelle when he taught a seminar at MIT in 1964)
 
2006-06-27 05:06:56 PM  
As long as Bush is president, our nation is safe.
Bwa ha ha ha ha spit sputter
Bwa ha ha ha
 
2006-06-27 05:07:49 PM  
Global warming started during the Carter administration and increased during the Clinton administration.
/I'm totally serial
 
2006-06-27 05:07:51 PM  
Epyn: Someone please do some constructive counterpoints to the film, I'd love to believe the film is bs. It would make me feel better.

Big Oil Talking Points are here. Which gives me a Bingo!
 
2006-06-27 05:08:06 PM  
Shadow Blasko

Here'a an excerpt from the link I provided to show that this is not unprecetented in the Earth's history...although, imo, I believe that this abrupt change is do to humans.

One example of abrupt climate change is an event that happened some 11,600 years ago at the termination of the Younger Dryas cold event, which was the last blast of cold climate at the end of the last Ice Age some.

Ice core records from Greenland show in less than a decade there was a sudden warming of around 15 degrees Celsius (27oF) of the annual mean temperature. At the same time a doubling of annual precipitation occurred. Researcher Richard Alley suggests that not only does the climate system have dials that slowly alter climate patterns, there are also switches that can suddenly shift climate in dramatic ways. (Source: Alley, et al. 1993. Graphic above from CLIVAR.) This abrupt event can be found in paleo records from many parts of the world, although not necessarily to such an extreme degree. While the exact causes of abrupt climate changes have yet to be clearly established, one area of research that is receiving a great deal of attention the Thermohaline Circulation system and what role it may play on abrupt climate shifts.
 
2006-06-27 05:10:45 PM  
as many people have pointed out in many threads, the global warming debate aside, working to make our air breathable and water drinkable is not a bad idea all on its own. Curbing pollution and working on clean energy sources is a good thing no matter how you feel about the human impact on global warming.
 
2006-06-27 05:11:05 PM  
For the sake of arguement, let's assume this is correct, and we have to adjust the behavior of the world. WE'RE done building our big stuff. We went though our industrial revolution 100 years ago.

So we're really going to tell China to change their policies? We're going to force India to conform to emission standands and C02 regulations?

For God's sake, some people have a problem with us forcing others to not blow us us. How are they going to swallow us telling the world how to change their rate of industrialization?

The answer, of course, is figuring out how 300 million people are responsible for all the evils of the world, but none of the good.
 
2006-06-27 05:11:21 PM  
crypticsatellite there are different cycles...if you go back far enough, you can find these massive changes in extremely short periods of time and the current changes fit in with those.

When was a similarly abrupt change, and how fast did it occur?
 
2006-06-27 05:12:43 PM  
I have been very much on the fence when it comes to issues concerning the causes and responses to Global Warming, but comments from this article (among others) are really starting to bring me to the conclusion that this is a man-made phenomenon:

The nation's top climate scientists are giving "An Inconvenient Truth,"....five stars for accuracy.

The former vice president's movie....mostly got the science right, said all 19 climate scientists who had seen the movie or read the book and answered questions from The Associated Press.

Gore conveyed the science correctly; the world is getting hotter and it is a manmade catastrophe-in-the-making caused by the burning of fossil fuels.



I am really starting to notice a lack of credible argument from the other side of this debate, but I am certainly open to reviewing any material that people have to offer.



Oh, and I really love the Bush response:

President Bush said he won't see it.
Nah-Nah-Nah-Nah-Nah I can't hear you *sticks head in sand*
 
2006-06-27 05:13:20 PM  
poisonpill
As long as Bush is president, our nation is safe.

Hideously Gigantic Smurf
From what?

Inconvenient truth.
 
2006-06-27 05:13:22 PM  
/me gives spectrum a cookie
That's a lot of something, I'll have to read it all after work.

Except that struck me as funny:
"Global warming might be more properly called, "Global less cooling."
 
2006-06-27 05:17:02 PM  
upload.wikimedia.org

Or try the far more popular "Harry Potter and the Balance of Earth."
 
2006-06-27 05:17:17 PM  
cigare1.fatcow.com
 
2006-06-27 05:19:26 PM  
krode

See 5:08:06PM
 
2006-06-27 05:20:01 PM  
2006-06-27 05:12:43 PM Bovey: I am really starting to notice a lack of credible argument from the other side of this debate, but I am certainly open to reviewing any material that people have to offer.

I'm calling shenanigans, I think you have your mind made up and have had it made up for a long time. The AP obviously wanted this survey to come back the way it did; even if you were not to believe that, where is your skeptical effort to eliminate that as a possibility?

Here's your "any material": Michael Chrichton addresses the climate models. His comments are consistent with good science, as well as common sense.

Stepping back, I have to say the arrogance of the modelmakers is breathtaking. There have been, in every century, scientists who say they know it all. Since climate may be a chaotic system-no one is sure-these predictions are inherently doubtful, to be polite. But more to the point, even if the models get the science spot-on, they can never get the sociology. To predict anything about the world a hundred years from now is simply absurd.

Look: If I was selling stock in a company that I told you would be profitable in 2100, would you buy it? Or would you think the idea was so crazy that it must be a scam?

Let's think back to people in 1900 in, say, New York. If they worried about people in 2000, what would they worry about? Probably: Where would people get enough horses? And what would they do about all the horseshiat? Horse pollution was bad in 1900, think how much worse it would be a century later, with so many more people riding horses?

But of course, within a few years, nobody rode horses except for sport. And in 2000, France was getting 80% its power from an energy source that was unknown in 1900. Germany, Switzerland, Belgium and Japan were getting more than 30% from this source, unknown in 1900. Remember, people in 1900 didn't know what an atom was. They didn't know its structure. They also didn't know what a radio was, or an airport, or a movie, or a television, or a computer, or a cell phone, or a jet, an antibiotic, a rocket, a satellite, an MRI, ICU, IUD, IBM, IRA, ERA, EEG, EPA, IRS, DOD, PCP, HTML, internet. interferon, instant replay, remote sensing, remote control, speed dialing, gene therapy, gene splicing, genes, spot welding, heat-seeking, bipolar, prozac, leotards, lap dancing, email, tape recorder, CDs, airbags, plastic explosive, plastic, robots, cars, liposuction, transduction, superconduction, dish antennas, step aerobics, smoothies, twelve-step, ultrasound, nylon, rayon, teflon, fiber optics, carpal tunnel, laser surgery, laparoscopy, corneal transplant, kidney transplant, AIDS... None of this would have meant anything to a person in the year 1900. They wouldn't know what you are talking about.

Now. You tell me you can predict the world of 2100. Tell me it's even worth thinking about. Our models just carry the present into the future. They're bound to be wrong. Everybody who gives a moment's thought knows it.


You've been sold a bill o'goods, friend. Either that, or you're one amongst the folks doing the selling.

Is Wall Street being relocated yet? Those oceans are supposed to be rising.
 
2006-06-27 05:20:30 PM  
Zionist_Entity : Michael Crichton also wrote "Prey," which officially removed him from the short list of respectable sci-fi authors after he received an official warning for "Timeline".

Hear, hear!

"Timeline" was pretty sketchy, I thought, and "Prey" just plain stank on ice.

"State of Fear" was an odd duck. I wasn't sure what to make of it when I read it, and I'm still not sure how to take it. It's the first in-depth presentation I've seen that tries to refute the "humanity is causing global warming" assertion, but I don't have the climatology / meteorology background to assess its validity.

Welcome to "trial by media," weather-people! On the one hand, we've got a slick politician that many people distrust instinctively, and on the other we have a science fiction novelist whose work may or may not have jumped the shark many years ago. When it comes to "bringing the issues to the people," that's a pretty odd pair of champions.

I think a lot of the confusion boils down to the fact that we as a society have become so used to the idea of being misled and screwed over by everyone from door-to-door salesmen to the upper reaches of government that we instinctively resist any kind of call to action.
 
2006-06-27 05:21:13 PM  
Has anyone seen the NOVA episode about "Global Dimming"?



/No, I'm not a communist.
 
2006-06-27 05:22:16 PM  
How much fossil fuel do we burn every day?

Now image that in 'piles of trees' and 'dinosaur carcasses' instead. If we had large facilities that burned countless dead dinosaurs all day long, people would be more thoughtful.

How can YOU curb your dinosaur flesh habit? Go to www.climatecrisis.net.

/too silly to be a valid talking point?
 
2006-06-27 05:23:51 PM  
paygun: So what's the solution to this problem? Do we just elect Democrats or is there more to it than that?

Anyone?
 
2006-06-27 05:25:27 PM  
"Reality has a well-known liberal bias."
- Stephen Colbert

Old hat by now, but still the Best Quote Ever.
 
2006-06-27 05:26:54 PM  
paygun:
Elect anyone who is not affiliated with the party currently dominating all aspects of government. Our country was never intended to be run without massive dissent from multiple powers, the downside to this 2 party system is the second party has waned and no one is there to pick up the slack.

Vote for a third party candidate, it doesn't matter who, your vote won't matter enough to either of the primary parties to help but another party can pick up steam rapidly if they get out of obscurity w/ 5%.

Gerrymandering already killed congress so try to start something new.
 
2006-06-27 05:28:33 PM  
i loved the part where he was being chased by the cold, and those wolves were pretty awesome too.
 
2006-06-27 05:28:56 PM  
It's not exactly difficult to understand.

10,000 or however many people actually work in the field and say one thing.

10 people get rather amazing speakers fees to counter reality, and have a media budget to yak on Fox News Channel to contradict the findings.

The media, in a fit of "equal time" present paid whores as equal to the people who actually research this stuff.

Result: OMG! There's a debate. Sorta like the nonexistent debate about evolution.

Joe TV watcher doesn't know whom to trust.
 
2006-06-27 05:29:05 PM  
2006-06-27 05:23:51 PM paygun: paygun: So what's the solution to this problem? Do we just elect Democrats or is there more to it than that?

No, there's no more to it than that. Just elect Democrats. Climate change may not go away, but you can be guaranteed people will stop talking about it. Nor do the new Democratic leaders have to actually do anything. Just by being in office, and being Democrats, they'll make the toxic rivers that glow in the dark, flow with chocolate, milk and honey. Jews and arabs will play jump rope, Hatfields and McCoys will dance the dosey-do together, and we'll all live in a world where clouds are made of marshmallows and everyone's farts smell like cinnamon toast.

I think you're starting to get it. Nobody is in favor of actually doing anything about this thing that's supposed to be a life-threatening problem. Nothing is being moved away from the coastlines, nor is anybody getting any kind of program or project together to get that done. No diesel-powered 18-wheelers are being replaced by any transcontinental network of electric light rail. They just want to get Democrats elected...that is all.
 
2006-06-27 05:29:23 PM  
Sum Dum Gai

You said:

Further, those climate changes were more gradual than the one we're seeing today -- in terms of number of degrees per year of change, we're unprecidented.

And I provided a very valid link which states:

Ice core records from Greenland show in less than a decade there was a sudden warming of around 15 degrees Celsius (27oF) of the annual mean temperature.

Hopefully, that'll end the "disagreement" with crypticsatellite...whoever that Farker is.
 
2006-06-27 05:29:47 PM  
I would hasten to add that 2006-06-27 05:26:54 PM Epyn [TotalFark] just helps to prove my point.
 
2006-06-27 05:30:40 PM  
No one accounts for the millions of cans of soda(pop) and release of CO2.

No one accounts for the increase in microwave activity from satellites, radio, cell towers, wifi (comm, tv, gps,...). All you need to do is radiate the atmosphere a degree or two..

It's like this folks, Gore is in catharsis over his sister's death from smoking (Hey, we all own a tobacco plantation!). So in guilt, he does something that albeit 15 years too late, is really a truth...the earth is changing and we can contribute to it. I liked him better with flannel and a beard. Now he looks fat and like all the other smooth-palm slick willies...

However, we need mother earth more than she (Gaia) needs us. She'll attract a planetoid (population killer) or comet or even better, use geologics to erase the parasites from her surface...again and again.

/Bah bye tundra.
//Hello big bugs!
 
2006-06-27 05:31:25 PM  
WOW!!!!!

19 out a hundred agree. That's just farking outstanding.
 
2006-06-27 05:34:52 PM  
I tried to read some of this bloviating. At least one person, chaddsfarkprefect, read the article. That ridiculous piece of trash of an article only noted that less than 20% of the 'top climate scientists' agreed with Gore's factual basis, but since they all agreed with each other, the author implied that the top climate scientists agreed. Period. Who cares?

Go back to school and stop cutting and pasting other researcher's faulty efforts to bolster your standing with the other nincompoops.
 
2006-06-27 05:35:56 PM  
Saw Gore when he was on Letterman - I think the guy's been given funny lessons. He'll never be a great stand-up comedian, but at least he knew when to lighten up.
 
2006-06-27 05:38:01 PM  
pwhp_67,

Well, you were right. I should have gotten a snack, though, because it's been really predictable and, consequently, boring.
 
2006-06-27 05:38:07 PM  
jspitalieri: The temperature has raised 1 degree in 400 years according to scientists. Excuse me if I don't trust temperatures from the 1600's . . .

The geological record for temperatures is quite accurate. I have not seen the movie. I have however seen several talks on the subject of global warming by some of the leaders in ecology, geology, and energy policy. Temperatures are directly tied to CO2 concentration. These are know as far back as 400,000 years. There is a fluctuation in the temperatures as a function of time corresponding to the ice ages and cool periods. This is seen quite clearly. The atmosphere has more CO2 than it has in the last 400,000 years. When CO2 goes up temperature follows. End of discussion.

Almost all of the CO2 produced comes from either coal burned for electricity or gas burned for transportation.
 
2006-06-27 05:42:59 PM  
REAL SHAMAN, farkoblanco, others

jesus goat-raping christ you guys suck at reading comprehension. let's try this one more time.

TFA
(An Inconvenient Truth)...mostly got the science right, said all 19 climate scientists who had seen the movie or read the book and answered questions from The Associated Press.

The AP contacted more than 100 top climate researchers by e-mail and phone for their opinion. Among those contacted were vocal skeptics of climate change theory. Most scientists had not seen the movie, which is in limited release, or read the book.
 
2006-06-27 05:43:31 PM  
I love all you "Science has been wrong before therfore you can trust science".

How do you people get to work? I can't imagine you ever drive in a car or even worse fly in a plane. SCIENCE has been wrong before!!! How are you not sure that your car could just blow up or gravity would change and your plane would crash.

I think many of you don't understand science. Science doesn't ever say it has the all the answers. Science says these are the best answers we have SO FAR. And it is stupid not to go with the best answers we have so far. If we were to wait until we were 100% sure it would be too late.

We have a lot of evidence on this subject. The earth has been heating up. Humans do produce a lot of greenhouse gases. The idea of heat being trapped in makes sense.

It seems these people like to say "Science has been wrong before" only when it's convient for them when it alows them to ignore something that is inconvient for them. Same thing they do with the national debt.

Science changes based on the facts. If scientist never changed their outlook no matter how many facts said otherwise then we would call them -- uh, well Republicans.
 
2006-06-27 05:44:13 PM  
farkoblanco
REAL SHAMON

Are you kidding?

Surely you have better reading comprehension. Try reading slower. Try sounding the words out. If these tips don't work you might want to contact the Sylvan Learning Center.
 
2006-06-27 05:44:14 PM  
19 out a hundred agree. That's just farking outstanding.

Incorrect.

19 out of the 19 that had seen the slideshow/movie/read the book couldn't fault the science. 19 out of 100 had seen it.

Die in fire strawman!
 
2006-06-27 05:44:59 PM  
Hey, farkoblanco, TFA said that all 19 of the top 100 scientists who had seen the movie or read the book gave it thumbs up.

Your little tantrum suggests that only 20% agree with Gore, which is statistical bullshiat on your part. 100 % - not 20% - of the scientists WHO HAD ACTUALLY SEEN THE MOVIE OR READ THE BOOK rated the science high. The rest HAD NOT SEEN THE MOVIE OR READ THE BOOK, so they couldn't comment.

Jackass. Who's misleading whom, eh?
 
2006-06-27 05:46:58 PM  
mkfreeberg

Michael Chrichton is an idiot if he really said that. The car was first invented in the late 1880's, so in 1900 people did know what it was. The rocket was invented hundreds of years before that. Many of those items in that long list you quoted were not only invented but also well known. But lets distrust the scientists and instead put our faith in a fiction writer, that makes soooo much sense it hurts.
 
2006-06-27 05:47:38 PM  
MICHAEL CHRICHTON IS NOT A FARKING AUTHORITY!

Get it through your goddamn heads!

His "scientific" education is as a MEDICAL DOCTOR. That's a masters-level professional degree with practicum. It doesn't require being able to research anything or to be able to critically examine anyone's research. It requires zero education in climatology.

Good science uses the best models it can and constantly refines them, just as the actual climatologists do. Farking morons who want an excuse to bury their heads in the sand poo-poo those models because they are either malicious bastards at heart or are incapable of understanding science because they never actually had to learn how to do it.
 
2006-06-27 05:47:53 PM  
mkfreeberg
They just want to get Democrats elected...that is all.

And who, oh wise and all knowing libtard basher, would "they" be?
 
Displayed 50 of 276 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report